Grummbeerbauer

35 1.8 - I have been waiting for this to be announced ever since I finally got tired of waiting and went for the Sigma 30 1.4. I might consider trading in the Sigma if the Canon has better AF consistency and is sharp with good contrast wide open -- the Sigma needs stopping down to ~1.8 for good contrast anyway, so I wouldn't loose too much. Oh, and of course Canon should stop trying to be more expensive with lenses than Nikon is and keep it in the range of the Nikkor counterpart and still include USM.

craigkg

If they were to replace the 5DII now, I'd guess it would be a 5DIIn with 60p video & maybe a better screen. Perhaps along with a 24-105L II.

But I wouldn't hold my breath. Somehow I think Canon wouldn't replace a camera that's still selling like gangbusters regardless of users clamoring for 60p, esp. not with a 5DIII in the pipe for this time next year or so.

Most likely the production line that makes 5D Mk II's is being used to fabricate some other camera, not necessarily a replacement to the 5D mk II. It could be they are building up a stock of 1Ds mk IV's for its release so there are not supply issues for the initial release when demand always outpaces the ability to produce the bodies.

PaulRivers

I would be excited to see a cheapish 35mm prime, don't get me wrong. If it had been out when the t2i was released, I probably would have just bought one.

But I'm still dissapointed that you can't buy a dslr lens that's as good as the lenses on a good point and shoot. Yeah, I know, the dslr is probably cleaner, less abberation etc, but I want the F2.0 28mm-105mm lens with Image Stabilization that's on my Canon s90, only in dslr form. Heck, you can't even get a prime lens with image stabilization! I've heard all about how you supposedly don't need it, but I'm not the only one who's found that under certain lighting (and when you need a deep depth of field) the compact actually takes better pictures than the dslr. It's kind of a niche range of lighting, but still - annoying.

Logged

deeznuts

35/1.8 and EF I'd die and go to heaven. Can't fork out the money for the 35L, am happy with the 35/2. They don't even have to do anything. Put the 35/2 in the USM package and I'd probably be happy. Any improvements otherwise would be icing!

I want the F2.0 28mm-105mm lens with Image Stabilization that's on my Canon s90, only in dslr form.

Yep - and that 28-105mm f/2.0 lens designed to project an image circle to cover a full frame (instead of the comparatively tiny sensor of the S90) would only be 12" long, 5" in diameter, weigh 9 pounds, and cost $5,000. I'm sure there's a huge market for that.

I want the F2.0 28mm-105mm lens with Image Stabilization that's on my Canon s90, only in dslr form.

Yep - and that 28-105mm f/2.0 lens designed to project an image circle to cover a full frame (instead of the comparatively tiny sensor of the S90) would only be 12" long, 5" in diameter, weigh 9 pounds, and cost $5,000. I'm sure there's a huge market for that.

Funny how my s90 fits in my jeans pocket with the lens with the same specs, and costs $400 for the entire camera...

Just my opinion, but I think wide angles have been the lowest priority for IS because it's not all that useful. You can hand hold a wide angle (28mm) at 1/30th of a second, even 1/15th if you are careful or brace yourself. Any slower than that and you'll get motion blur from the subject (if it's alive).

If it's not alive you can use a tripod.

Not saying IS is totally useless with wide angles, just not as important as with telephotos.

Most likely the production line that makes 5D Mk II's is being used to fabricate some other camera, not necessarily a replacement to the 5D mk II. It could be they are building up a stock of 1Ds mk IV's for its release so there are not supply issues for the initial release when demand always outpaces the ability to produce the bodies.

That would fit if they allocated all their full-frame sensor production to ramp up for the 1DsIV. Body-wise though, about the only thing the 1Ds & 5D have in common is the mirror & maybe a few viewfinder bits; probably not showstoppers from a production point of view...

Logged

CameraAddict

Regarding the 70-300mm, Costco, Amazon, the major camer retailers all seem to have plenty of them. Even our smaller local camera shops have them in stock. I wonder if the backorder situation is for a small-time outfit that Canon isn't as happy with (because they aren't selling enough stock to make them a priority)?

It is a more than 6 year old lens, so I suppose it's due for an upgrade, although they don't seem to be in the process of upgrading the 100-400mm, and it's more than 10 years old! (People who think the 70-300mm is newer lens, are probably thinking of the poorly-received DO version of it that came out in 2008.)

(I have the 70-300mm and like it, but I would be sad if they brought out a new, "better" one, because I've only owned it for 8 months.)

Logged

that1guy

I love 35mm lenses on FF cameras. If I had to chose one lens to live with forever on a FF, that would probably be it. I'll be really interested in this lens. Hopefully they can control CA and fringing well on it so that it is useful wide open for those of us who shoot stock.

Just my opinion, but I think wide angles have been the lowest priority for IS because it's not all that useful. You can hand hold a wide angle (28mm) at 1/30th of a second, even 1/15th if you are careful or brace yourself. Any slower than that and you'll get motion blur from the subject (if it's alive).

If it's not alive you can use a tripod.

Not saying IS is totally useless with wide angles, just not as important as with telephotos.

Well for anything alive I've tried really hard to go below 1/60, and it doesn't work very well. If the subject moves the slightest bit it's blurry. So I'd say the line is at 1/60.

I know what you mean, but a tripod just isn't a very good solution most of the time. My shooting is usually mixed between live and static subjects, and I don't have the time or space to carry a tripod around with me in addition to the camera.

I know what you mean - it's not AS important on a prime as it is on a zoom. But it would still be useful, and as I mentioned I'm a little shocked it's not even offered, when it comes standard on point and shoots. You know what I mean? It's like finding out you can't get a nav system on a Lexus, even though you can get it on economy cars. It's just weird.

Just my opinion, but I think wide angles have been the lowest priority for IS because it's not all that useful. You can hand hold a wide angle (28mm) at 1/30th of a second, even 1/15th if you are careful or brace yourself. Any slower than that and you'll get motion blur from the subject (if it's alive).

If it's not alive you can use a tripod.

Not saying IS is totally useless with wide angles, just not as important as with telephotos.

Well for anything alive I've tried really hard to go below 1/60, and it doesn't work very well. If the subject moves the slightest bit it's blurry. So I'd say the line is at 1/60.

I know what you mean, but a tripod just isn't a very good solution most of the time. My shooting is usually mixed between live and static subjects, and I don't have the time or space to carry a tripod around with me in addition to the camera.

I know what you mean - it's not AS important on a prime as it is on a zoom. But it would still be useful, and as I mentioned I'm a little shocked it's not even offered, when it comes standard on point and shoots. You know what I mean? It's like finding out you can't get a nav system on a Lexus, even though you can get it on economy cars. It's just weird.

No disagreement from me. Although on a wide angle, if I had to choose between a fast lens and IS, I'd pick a fast lens. That said, there have certainly been lots of times I've twisted myself into bizarre shapes trying to brace a wide angle to catch that "one last shot" as the sun goes down. I figure eventually all the lenses will have IS, whether it's useful or not. We all expect it now.